The paper examines changes in the jurisprudence of the WTO Appellate Body in three areas of law and concludes that the Appellate Body failed to acknowledge and cogently explain in each of these areas the changes it made. The paper concludes that all changes in jurisprudence reduce predictability but that predictability suffers even more when the changes are made in disguise because panels and Members then receive confused or conflicting normative signals. The paper argues that the Appellate Body should handle changes in jurisprudence more transparently and adopt internal procedures that make the need for them less likely.